391 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

Auld Wulf wrote...

People who were with the series since ME1 (I played ten minutes of ME1 and watched the cutscenes on Youtube, I fell asleep) were expecting something that was part of the usual entertainment slurry. You know, steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things. Very typical. I think ME2 and ME3 tried to open people up to a more mature style of game. Sadly, the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many, but I vastly appreciated the effort. The artistic values of ME3 have cemented it as one of my all-time favourites -- right up there with Shadow of the Colossus.

My only worry is that after this reprisal, BioWare will stop being brave and return to the Western entertainment slurry, not even trying to be philosophical, poignant, clever, or intellectual. I really hope that won't be the case.

I... disagree with you, as usual (well, not on everything for a change). I have serious problems seeing how ME1 can be singled out as the "steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things" entry of the series, especially compared to ME3. I also think it's... problematic to be as judgemental about people and their reactions to ME3 as you are when you haven't even played the game that was the foundation of both Commander Shepard's story and the whole Mass Effect universe. Not saying not having played ME1 makes anyone a lesser fan of Mass Effect or anything like that, but it doesn't make me take your bashing of people about being critical of ME3 using a very dismissive and harsh tone any more seriously. 

I strongly encourage Bioware to try being philosophical, poignant, clever, and intellectual in the writing of their games, I just think they should try out more radical things in new games/IPs, not in the finale of a trilogy - it hurts less that way when they fail like in ME3. Had they not failed I likely would have thanked them for their effort as well. As it stands it's my strong belief that it's not that "the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many", but that it didn't work for many because it was a failure.

I can't bring myself to write long posts about ME anymore, so I'll end now with some facts about myself:

- I practically never play FPS games
- Spec Ops: The Line is the only shooter game with a reality based military setting I've ever played
- I grew up with the old LucasArts point&click adventures
- Shadow of the Colossus is probably my favourite game of all time

[dani1138]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

I... disagree with you, as usual (well, not on everything for a change). I have serious problems seeing how ME1 can be singled out as the "steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things" entry of the series, especially compared to ME3. I also think it's... problematic to be as judgemental about people and their reactions to ME3 as you are when you haven't even played the game that was the foundation of both Commander Shepard's story and the whole Mass Effect universe.

Absolutely, of all the games, ME1 is definitely the least "steroid pumped blah blah blah". It's the least focussed on combat. It's got more side-quests that can be solved non-violently that the other two games combined. It features more puzzle-based mini-games than the others. It has far more dialogue and background info than the others. In contrast to ME3, ME1 has boatloads of freeform exploration - ME3 has none whatsoever. ME1 is an action RPG with shooter elements. ME2 & 3 are third person shooters with RPG elements.

Helps to play a game for more than 10 minutes before making assumptions about it.

[Auld Wulf]

Well, ten minutes was an over-exaggeration. I played the first few missions of it, so that's likely much longer. It just felt very one-dimensional.

There is bad guy.

Shoot bad guy.

Good guy wins.

CELEBRATE.

Essentially a spruced up Space Invaders, like I said.

I watched the cutscenes to see if they reaffirmed this, and they really did. It was a very one-dimensional storyline. I honestly feel that the stories presented in 2 and 3 were far more mature. But that's my opinion.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 29 mars 2013 - 09:09 .

[F4H bandicoot]

Auld Wulf wrote...

People who were with the series since ME1 (I played ten minutes of ME1 and watched the cutscenes on Youtube, I fell asleep) were expecting something that was part of the usual entertainment slurry. You know, steroid pumped person with gun runs around shooting things. Very typical. I think ME2 and ME3 tried to open people up to a more mature style of game. Sadly, the effort was a failure as it didn't work for the many, but I vastly appreciated the effort. The artistic values of ME3 have cemented it as one of my all-time favourites -- right up there with Shadow of the Colossus.

My only worry is that after this reprisal, BioWare will stop being brave and return to the Western entertainment slurry, not even trying to be philosophical, poignant, clever, or intellectual. I really hope that won't be the case.

How very wrong you are.

[Nicodemus]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, ten minutes was an over-exaggeration. I played the first few missions of it, so that's likely much longer. It just felt very one-dimensional.

There is bad guy.

Shoot bad guy.

Good guy wins.

CELEBRATE.

Essentially a spruced up Space Invaders, like I said.

I watched the cutscenes to see if they reaffirmed this, and they really did. It was a very one-dimensional storyline. I honestly feel that the stories presented in 2 and 3 were far more mature. But that's my opinion.

ME 2:

There is shady guy from an organisation from ME1 telling you about bad guys, asks you to go kill bad guys to stop bad guys hinted at in ME1.

ME3:

Bad guys hinted at from ME1 and 2 have to be shot/defeated. To do so you have to shot bad guys who were your allies from ME2.

So, ME2 and 3 is essentially:

There are Bad guys

Shoot bad guys

ME2: Good guy wins

ME3: Good guy commits dna rape/genocide/or becomes God Emperor Shepard.. 

ME2 and ME3 are even more 1 dimensional than ME1.

[dani1138]

Auld Wulf, I'm not sure what else to say to you. No matter how much of the game you played before giving up, you've left it with totally the wrong impression. You should look up the Noveria mission, and see just how many different ways there are to complete it - the level of violence you employ varies dramatically, and there's really nothing in ME2 or 3 that compares to that level of player choice. This kind of gameplay was stripped out in favour of on-rails combat-focussed missions in the sequels, and that's why your argument seems so hard to swallow - Once again, you've built a lot of very intricate theories that have taken you to completely the wrong conclusion. A spruced up Space Invaders? It definitely is not.

[MrDavid]

I've found that out of the entire trilogy, the first game is the only one with an actually decent plot. For one, it's the only game with a true antagonist. Saren is not just a good villain but an interesting character and a good foil to Shepard. Harbinger is nothing more than a distant voicebox who talks WAY too much through the Collector Mooks. The Collectors themselves don't really have a purpose other than a somewhat generic alien race for you to kill (though their backstory is kinda cool).
That brings us to the Reapers in the 3rd game, who are much more like a unstoppable hazard, something that must be endured rather than directly confronted. What the both the 2nd and 3rd games lack is an indentifiable bad guy who is comparable to Shepard.
Well, the third game does have Kai Leng (*please hold your laughter) and the Starchild (who shows up at the proverbial eleventh hour).
Funny enough, the weakest part of Mass Effect are the first few planets, Feros has little impact and Noveria is okay (it drags a little). It's only until Virmire that the game gets REALLY good and from then on it's awesome. It's funny because the 2nd and 3rd games have awesome missions like the loyalties, the derelcit reaper, Tuchanka (3rd game), and Rannoch but outside of the ending to the 3rd there's not a whole lot of significant plot twists. The closest thing to a twist in the second game is when the collector ship attacks the Normandy. But this doesn't change the story, it more just forces your hand into the Suicide Mission.
I've always found that the real story worth telling in the Mass Effect Trilogy is how the events affect and shape the characters and how their beliefs impact each other. Mass Effect 3 took some of these beliefs (like the Human vs. Synthetic conflict hinted at between Tali and Legion) and tried to frame the entire trilogy under this theme with the ending. It didn't quite work but I'm still glad Bioware tried. Honestly though, they probably should have played it safe and just given the fans what they want. Yes it could have been done WAY better, but I'm glad we got SOMETHING, instead of the unartistic garbage that Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty and Battlefield give us.

[SpamBot2000]

Oh for crying out loud.

I guess everyone knows what I'm referring to.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 29 mars 2013 - 10:20 .

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Bethesda > Fallout 3 > Radioactive chamber vs the radioactivity immune mutant.

That also changed the ending of the lone wanderer to one that said he stood aside for a real hero....... wut?

It seem's that, within our dear developer's community, there is a concept that it is better to die for a cause, than use common sense to solve a problem. For if you do use common sense over a noble heroic end that is entirely avoidable then you will be berated for it! Because it's just not heroic enough! <puffs out chest>

What does this have to do with ME3, though?  There's no application of Shepard's common sense that gives him a Crucible that works the way he'd prefer it would.

The above post was in response to another poster who said that BW have broken new ground in releasing a changed ending. However, Bethesda got there first, and so rather than standing out, BW have actually helped to begin to establish a pattern. The fan's requirement for end game content that isn't rushed out the gate without scrutiny. Because if the ending fails to carry the story and the fan's along for the ride after investing 40+ hours' into the game, you can be sure that all those aging gamer's who have a voice they didn't have when they were twelve will speak up about it.

Come away from the story and think about how that story came about.  A writer, somewhere at some time wrote it.

And that writer decided........ what? That the hero should die before writing the end. Or did s/he write the end and then decide that the hero should die?

That post above is more a critique on developers from different studio's writing ending's that do not make sense. Either narratively, logically etc.

I mean, as a player you invest in a character. A successful game will make you enjoy playing a role and BW's character's pull this off every time with their customisation and relatively recent dialogue options. So when you finish the game, you start to feel a small pang of separation with this souless avatar who only takes on, whatever aspect's you, as a player imbue into it.........  a seperation which can be cured with a replay!

But for such a bleak ending in the original cut. It's like BW wanted an ending so bleak that they wanted to boost the sale of ice cream through comfort eating. And who want's to replay a game that see's your weekly budget thrown out to accomodate a bottom freezer draw of Ben and Jerry's?

[SpamBot2000]

Redbelle wrote...

And that writer decided........ what? That the hero should die before writing the end. Or did s/he write the end and then decide that the hero should die?

The first one. And couldn't even write it to make sense. Hence "But why did Shepard have to die?", answer:"Lots of speculation from everyone." From his own notes.

[FlamingBoy]

Its a pretty soppy video games are "art" blog op.

The first paragraph the writer implied that he was going to write about the controversy and what it meant for the industry, but it devolved into this weird annoying self-righteousness.

The mass effect 3 ending controversy was an extremely complex and many layered issue and only dealing with the "artistic vision" issue is extremely disingenuous. (granted he did have a brief look at the "lies" of bioware)

[FlamingBoy]

dani1138 wrote...

Auld Wulf, I'm not sure what else to say to you. No matter how much of the game you played before giving up, you've left it with totally the wrong impression. You should look up the Noveria mission, and see just how many different ways there are to complete it - the level of violence you employ varies dramatically, and there's really nothing in ME2 or 3 that compares to that level of player choice. This kind of gameplay was stripped out in favour of on-rails combat-focussed missions in the sequels, and that's why your argument seems so hard to swallow - Once again, you've built a lot of very intricate theories that have taken you to completely the wrong conclusion. A spruced up Space Invaders? It definitely is not.

Noveria was very detailed, I do not recall the other missions, while good, being nearly as detailed however.

could be wrong, its been a few years since i played it

[XqctaX]

basically it comes down to this.

videogames is an entertainment artform. there is art within games,
but there primary function is to entertain, not be artistic.
as such the art hold absolutely NO value if the game is not entertaining to the gamer.

also games, movies and books in all thier fictional forms foremost purpose,
is to escape ones own reality and find entertainment in a fictional reality, world,
character or adventure while beeing immersed in that.

breaking immersion, failing to abide by simple storytelling elements
like "rewarding the readers trust" (which is almost the cardinal rule or writing)
or making something feel to close to reality in terms of sadness, failure or loss of characters
within said story without a true emotional payoff for the reader in the end
is the very reason the film industry have on serveral occations changed there movie-
endings after screenings, and continue to test-screen movies to this day...

not knowing you audience or even worse,
failing to deliver what has been promised or even hinted on.
is not a desireable path in any part of the entertainment industry,

so to blame or ridicule readers/fans/viewers for not beeing entertained
by a product of entertainment and then claim "artistic integrety"
is just unintelligent/incompetence or perhaps inexperience at best and says more about the
person doing that, then it does about the fans/etc.

Modifié par XqctaX, 30 mars 2013 - 11:27 .

[Iakus]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

And that writer decided........ what? That the hero should die before writing the end. Or did s/he write the end and then decide that the hero should die?

The first one. And couldn't even write it to make sense. Hence "But why did Shepard have to die?", answer:"Lots of speculation from everyone." From his own notes.

"The hero should" anything defeats the purpose of the Mass Effect games entirely.  What's the point of making choices across three games if in the end Shepard burns anyway?

[Archonsg]

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

And that writer decided........ what? That the hero should die before writing the end. Or did s/he write the end and then decide that the hero should die?

The first one. And couldn't even write it to make sense. Hence "But why did Shepard have to die?", answer:"Lots of speculation from everyone." From his own notes.

"The hero should" anything defeats the purpose of the Mass Effect games entirely.  What's the point of making choices across three games if in the end Shepard burns anyway?

BINGO!
Shepard should die.
Shepard should live.
Shepard should make the Renegade choice.
Shepard should ...

The moment the writers decided that Shepard should ... anything, ...it took away options.
Options that would have made the game better.

It took away player agency and in order to shoehorn in a Shepard that fit their idea of how Shepard should die, replaced my Shepard with a broken man kowtowing then accepting a suicide order from the enemy.

[AlexMBrennan]

Never before had a product of entertainment been so swiftly altered in response to its fans

Are you sure about that? If that is true, however, then that's because it usually happens behind the scenes - test screenings for movies and such - and developers are only rarely this comically out of touch with the fan base (who at Bioware thought that fans would prefer three identical palette-swapped ending cinematics?)

The idea that Bioware "owe" their fans is nonsense to me. It's true that Bioware misled customers

Ok, so it's bad that Bioware promised us feature X when they didn't deliver, but Bioware does not owe us feature X?

People mocked Bioware for valuing "artistic vision"

No. People mock Bioware hiding behind "artistic vision" when the problem really is an objectively bad piece of media - you do not just change the premise of the entire trilogy (from humansa vs Reapers to Godchild vs tech singularity) at the eleventh hour with zero foreshadowing, etc.

The other issue is that Bioware is clearly in it for the money (cf Bioware's statement that future DLC depended on Leviathan sales - if they truly did it for the art then they would have made whatever DLC they had planned regardless of sales).

I see video games as a growing, fledgling art and I think that there is little merit in simply catering to your fans in comparison to an artist creating something that they are pleased with

You may well be right but for that to happen the video game industry will have to seriously reconsider their business model - games are bought sight unseen, so the customer cannot make an educated decision about buying the game and it is up to the developer to keep customers happy; hell, if you buy a book from Amazon you can return it if you don't like it and you can listen to songs on the radio before you buy the record - video games (and movies), not so much. You don't have to buy a painting before you can decide whether you like it.

So, if the video game industry wants to be artists then maybe they should start playing by the rules and stop treating customers as the enemy (pirates! The reason you can return books but not games is that it is rather easier to copy a DVD than a book... Which somehow means that customers are entitled to less legal protection from bovine excrement like Colonial Marines than a book littered with spelling mistakes and purple prose)

[Archonsg]

@alexmbrennan

There is one hurdle though.
Games are not of as products that with longevity.

Compare games made a decade ago and today's games.
Older games assume and allow the player to be able to keep playing as long as he has his installation files.

ME3 for example, what happens say 5-10 years from now when EA shuts the authentication servers off.
Without resorting to illegal means, how are we going to install and authenticate our game and DLCs?
Not to mention the MP EMS issue with you being stuck at 50% EMS. Remember, you won't be able to authenticate your ECDLC.

Would EA/Bioware make a patch to allow offline authentication?
I honestly don't think so.

Thus game refunds are unlikely since games usually are considered "broken" once sold.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

And that writer decided........ what? That the hero should die before writing the end. Or did s/he write the end and then decide that the hero should die?

The first one. And couldn't even write it to make sense. Hence "But why did Shepard have to die?", answer:"Lots of speculation from everyone." From his own notes.

"The hero should" anything defeats the purpose of the Mass Effect games entirely.  What's the point of making choices across three games if in the end Shepard burns anyway?

QFT

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Never before had a product of entertainment been so swiftly altered in response to its fans

Are you sure about that? If that is true, however, then that's because it usually happens behind the scenes - test screenings for movies and such - and developers are only rarely this comically out of touch with the fan base (who at Bioware thought that fans would prefer three identical palette-swapped ending cinematics?)

There are plenty of known instances of films being changed to please test audiences, yeah. Usually for the worse, IMO.

TV shows are often retooled to some extent, typically between seasons though occasionally midseason.

But the difference with the EC is just that you can change an ending post-release in a game and can't do it in other media. Certainly not a film, since the production crew has moved on and the sets are gone. TV comes a bit closer; if the show's still on the air you can retcon stuff next season. Dallas is a fairly (in)famous example.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

You may well be right but for that to happen the video game industry will have to seriously reconsider their business model - games are bought sight unseen, so the customer cannot make an educated decision about buying the game and it is up to the developer to keep customers happy; hell, if you buy a book from Amazon you can return it if you don't like it and you can listen to songs on the radio before you buy the record - video games (and movies), not so much. You don't have to buy a painting before you can decide whether you like it.

So, if the video game industry wants to be artists then maybe they should start playing by the rules and stop treating customers as the enemy (pirates! The reason you can return books but not games is that it is rather easier to copy a DVD than a book... Which somehow means that customers are entitled to less legal protection from bovine excrement like Colonial Marines than a book littered with spelling mistakes and purple prose)

This sounds like an argument that films aren't art either.

[Getorex]

It's quite simple really. If playing (or designing) a game, the player should be able to actually WIN the game (and the designer should make it possible). No one wants to play a game that cannot be won and YOUR character (Shepard IS an extension of the player, not some mythical real person...YOU the player) getting killed off no matter how you play, no matter how well you play, is not winning.

MEHEM replaces the flawed endings and gives the player an actual chance to win the game. Future version (next? v0.4?) will allow you to screw it up and not "win" in that you get your Shep killed.

[AlanC9]

Getorex wrote...

It's quite simple really. If playing (or designing) a game, the player should be able to actually WIN the game (and the designer should make it possible). No one wants to play a game that cannot be won and YOUR character (Shepard IS an extension of the player, not some mythical real person...YOU the player) getting killed off no matter how you play, no matter how well you play, is not winning. .

So Planescape: Torment is an unwinnable game? I'll name more if you like.

Anyway, Shep obviously lives in high-EMS Destroy.

[Getorex]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

You may well be right but for that to happen the video game industry will have to seriously reconsider their business model - games are bought sight unseen, so the customer cannot make an educated decision about buying the game and it is up to the developer to keep customers happy; hell, if you buy a book from Amazon you can return it if you don't like it and you can listen to songs on the radio before you buy the record - video games (and movies), not so much. You don't have to buy a painting before you can decide whether you like it.

So, if the video game industry wants to be artists then maybe they should start playing by the rules and stop treating customers as the enemy (pirates! The reason you can return books but not games is that it is rather easier to copy a DVD than a book... Which somehow means that customers are entitled to less legal protection from bovine excrement like Colonial Marines than a book littered with spelling mistakes and purple prose)

This sounds like an argument that films aren't art either.

LIke anything else it depends.  I would argue that Mortal Combat, the various iterations of the Transformers movies, a whole LOT of movies released as empty caloric explosion entertainment is NOT art.  It is a disposable commodity, like the Ford Pinto.  Art endures while artlessness festers.

[Getorex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

It's quite simple really. If playing (or designing) a game, the player should be able to actually WIN the game (and the designer should make it possible). No one wants to play a game that cannot be won and YOUR character (Shepard IS an extension of the player, not some mythical real person...YOU the player) getting killed off no matter how you play, no matter how well you play, is not winning. .

So Planescape: Torment is an unwinnable game? I'll name more if you like.

Anyway, Shep obviously lives in high-EMS Destroy.

Can't say cuz I haven't played, and wont play that game.  EVERY game I've ever played and enjoyed allows a win if you play well.  That's the nature of games.  As for the high-EMS Destroy...that belief is a common fallacy.  That "gasp" is what is technically called "agonal breathing".  All animalls, humans included, go through it under most circumstances of death.  People make the false assumption that breathing means "alive".  No.  Agonal breathing is spastic, uncoordinated, sporadic breathing that signifies The End.  When somone, human or not, is undergoing agonal breathing, they are no longer alive.  Their mind is gone.  There's no feeling, no memory, no thoughts going on at that point.  The mind is gone. 

That nasty death scene displayed Shepard in the process of an agonal breath.  I've seen it in injured/dying animals and human animals up close.  They're gone at that point. Long gone.

[wright1978]

AlanC9 wrote...

So Planescape: Torment is an unwinnable game? I'll name more if you like.

Anyway, Shep obviously lives in high-EMS Destroy.

Well it is implied he/she can live but EC utterly fails to give any satisying clarification/closure to this element, which would have been simple to do.